@testing987654321
Hope that didn't sound patronising wiggly, I am sure I spent a good week pondering how to approach it.
Not at all! Good advice, thanks :)
I'm definitely going to do the ones about conflicts between the EA and the GRA.
For evidence on this, I'm planning to point to "Stonewall law" - examples of where people / companies are misinterpreting the EA and ask for the government to provide clear guidance as the effect is that services for women and single sex spaces are being denied to women on the basis of misinterpreting the law.
I think that's relevant, can anyone advise?
I also want to tackle the question about the age of transition. As a mother I don't think it's at all appropriate for children to be able to make such life long decisions.
For evidence on that one I want to point to how much misinformation there is on this (e.g. I hope I can find evidence of studies misquoted) and to bring up detransitioners - that the message being given to parents and kids on this one is that detransition rate is low, the blockers are reversible and that the suicide rate is high - but that these things are not true.
For further evidence on this one I'll also point to the testimony of the GIDS / Tavistock whistle-blowers, Transgender Trend's info on the manipulation of the suicide stats and show that the number of detransitioners is underplayed and not known. I'll call for a government audit of government funded organisations, to make sure they're not putting out misinformation on this. (e.g. that blockers are "reversible").
I want to talk about how GRA reform will legitimise such treatments and that lowering the age of transition legally risks locking young people into a path that leads to poor medical outcomes. I'm not sure what evidence I can use to prove a link here between government policy and people's behaviour though, can anyone advise?
I'd also like to point out that's it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about GRA reform / transgender people if they don't define terms. This is relevant to the question on how many people have applied for a GRC. These days trans can mean a huge umbrella of people. (Evidence, Stonewall on this probably). at the time of the 2004 GRA is meant a very specific group of people - transsexuals seeking "sex change" - and in the Hansard debates, IIRC they predicted about 5,000 people would want a GRC. That there are "only" about 5,000 GRCs now shows their predictions were spot on.
Under the question on "what else should we have included" I also think I want to talk ab out how they've omitted any consideration of women - and indeed all people within the other protected characteristics. They need to do an impact assessment on how any such changes will affect other people as there is a conflict of rights here. I'm not sure what evidence I'll use for that - does anyone have any ideas?
I many not get all this done, but I'm going to try!